Naftogaz of Ukraine is seeking to enforce against Gazprom a $1.37B award from a Zurich-seated ICC tribunal over unpaid ship-or-pay fees for gas transit across Ukraine. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court upheld the award in March 2026, but the AIFC Court in Kazakhstan set aside its recognition in July 2026. The AIFC Court of Appeal heard Naftogaz’s appeal on September 30, 2026, and reserved judgment.
Latest development Sep 30, 2026
On September 30, 2026, the AIFC Court of Appeal heard Naftogaz’s appeal against the July 2026 decision that set aside recognition of the $1.37B award. A three-judge panel heard the appeal together with a related Posco Co. Ltd. case. The court reserved judgment.
Why it matters
The case tests whether creditors holding post-2022 awards against Gazprom can enforce them against its assets in third countries. The outcome matters to other award creditors of Russian state companies, including former European customers pursuing roughly €19.5B in further claims.
Background
Under a five-year transit agreement signed in December 2019, PJSC Gazprom committed to pay for a minimum volume of gas transportation across Ukraine on ship-or-pay terms. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, transit through the Sokhranivka entry point was suspended under force majeure in May 2022, and Gazprom stopped paying in full. NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine commenced ICC arbitration in September 2022.
In June 2025, the Zurich-seated tribunal awarded Naftogaz $1.37B, comprising principal debt for transit services, late-payment interest, and costs. On August 6, 2025, the Arbitrazh Court of Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Region (case no. A56-52159/2025) issued an anti-enforcement injunction. It prohibited Naftogaz from seeking recognition and enforcement of the award outside Russia and from continuing related foreign proceedings. Gazprom applied to set aside the award in Switzerland. On March 11, 2026, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected the application and upheld the award, making it final and enforceable under the New York Convention.
Gazprom holds no meaningful assets in Ukraine or the West, so Naftogaz has sought to enforce the award in third states. By an order dated May 15, 2026, and reported on May 21, the AIFC Court in Astana recognized the award and authorized its enforcement. Gazprom’s 50% stake in KazRosGaz was a possible target. Kazakhstan’s justice ministry quickly signaled that it would not act as a “transit platform” for enforcement.
On July 7, 2026, the AIFC Court (Lord Faulks KC) set aside its recognition order. It held that the dispute has no legal connection to Kazakhstan and falls outside its jurisdiction. Naftogaz appealed, and its asset search shifted to other jurisdictions. On September 30, 2026, a three-judge panel of the AIFC Court of Appeal heard the appeal together with a related Posco Co. Ltd. case and reserved judgment. Gazprom separately faces roughly €19.5B in further claims from former European customers.
Timeline 8 events
-
HearingAIFC Court of Appeal hears Naftogaz appeal on enforcement jurisdiction
The appeal challenged the July 2026 decision setting aside recognition of the $1.37B award for lack of jurisdiction. A three-judge panel heard it together with a related Posco Co. Ltd. case and reserved judgment.
Drew Holiner appears for Naftogaz in US$1.4 billion AIFC Court appeal
-
EnforcementAIFC Court sets aside its recognition for lack of jurisdiction
The court held that the dispute had no legal connection to Kazakhstan and gave the parties 14 days for costs submissions. Naftogaz’s asset search shifted to other jurisdictions.
Kazakhstan Court Overturns $1.4Bln Naftogaz Award — The Moscow Times
-
EnforcementAIFC Court authorizes enforcement in Kazakhstan
The recognition order opened a possible path to Gazprom’s Kazakh assets, including its 50% stake in KazRosGaz. Kazakhstan’s justice ministry quickly signaled that it would not act as a “transit platform” for enforcement.
Kazakhstan Court Clears Path for Naftogaz — The Moscow Times
-
JudgmentSwiss Federal Supreme Court rejects Gazprom’s set-aside bid
The award became final and enforceable under the New York Convention.
-
OtherRussian court issues anti-enforcement injunction against Naftogaz
The Arbitrazh Court of Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Region (case no. A56-52159/2025) barred Naftogaz from seeking recognition and enforcement of the award outside Russia. It also barred Naftogaz from continuing related foreign proceedings.
-
AwardZurich-seated ICC tribunal awards Naftogaz $1.37B
The award covered principal debt for transit services under the 2019 agreement, late-payment interest, and legal costs.
Naftogaz declares billion-dollar win against Gazprom — GARBrattle announcement
-
FilingNaftogaz files ICC arbitration over unpaid ship-or-pay fees
-
OtherGazprom cuts payments after Sokhranivka transit is suspended
Force majeure was declared over the Russian-occupied entry point, and Gazprom stopped paying full ship-or-pay fees under the 2019 transit contract.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeBy June 30, 2027, how will the AIFC Court of Appeal rule on Naftogaz’s appeal against the July 7, 2026, order setting aside recognition of the $1.37 billion award?
- Court of Appeal upholds set-aside62%
- Court of Appeal restores recognition22%
- Still pending on June 30, 202713%
- Naftogaz withdraws appeal or settles3%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The AIFC Court of Appeal is more likely than not to uphold the set-aside of recognition, at 62%, with judgment expected by mid-2027. The first-instance court found the dispute had no legal connection to Kazakhstan, and the government has openly opposed use of Kazakhstan as an enforcement venue.
How it resolves. Resolves on public AIFC Court records or reliable press reports as of June 30, 2027. “Restores recognition” if the Court of Appeal allows the appeal in whole or in part and reverses or remits the July 7, 2026, set-aside order. “Upholds set-aside” if it dismisses the appeal. “Withdraws or settles” if Naftogaz discontinues the appeal or the parties announce a settlement before judgment. “Still pending” if none has occurred by June 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Appeals against first-instance jurisdictional rulings in common-law-style commercial courts: Roughly 20% to 30% of civil appeals in common-law appellate courts succeed in reversing the lower court.
The previous forecast asked a different, broader question, so its numbers are not compared here. Common-law appellate courts reverse roughly a fifth to a third of civil judgments, which anchors the restoration outcome near 22%. The July 7, 2026, ruling rested on a clear jurisdictional ground, the absence of any legal connection to Kazakhstan, which appellate courts tend to review deferentially within a limited statutory remit. The justice ministry’s public statement that Kazakhstan will not be a “transit platform” adds institutional headwind for Naftogaz. Against that, the New York Convention does not itself require a forum nexus, and the joint hearing with the Posco case suggests the court sees a broader point of principle worth deciding. Judgment was reserved on September 30, 2026, and an eight-month window should usually suffice, though a joined appeal raising novel issues could take longer, so 13% is left for delay. Settlement or withdrawal is unlikely given the Russian anti-enforcement injunction and Gazprom’s consistent resistance.
First-instance ruling rests on lack of Kazakh connection · Kazakh justice ministry opposes enforcement via Kazakhstan · New York Convention imposes no forum-nexus requirement · Joined Posco appeal may broaden or delay the ruling · Russian anti-enforcement injunction deters any settlement
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 1, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made